PHI 445 WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT UPDATED 2023.

Final Project Case Analysis: GoodYear PHI 445: Personal & Organization Professor Robert Strain 1 PHI 445 WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT UPDATED 2023. Case Study: GoodYear Introduction In this assignment I have decided to go with the topic of Gender Discrimination (Goodyear) and for this I will be writing about the case of Ledbetter vs the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company where Lilly Ledbetter, the only female production supervisor in Gadsden, AL worked for over 20 years. She sued the company over gender discrimination in regards to her pay in 1998. Her salary was as much as 40 percent lower than that of the lowest-paid male supervisor (Brake and Grossman, 2007). Her lawsuit was rejected as untimely by The Supreme Court, who issued a 5-4 ruling because she filed her complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) too late (Bader,2012). The law provides that employees should sue an employer within 180 days after their first discriminatory check, or at the time they find out even if they have been with the company for a while (Allison, 2008). Thesis In the case of Lilly Ledbetter vs Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the ruling from the Supreme Court majority in favor of Goodyear was morally unjust under the theory of utilitarianism. The utilitarian theory consists of three major components: consequences, consequences of happiness and unhappiness, and assessing the beneficial consequences of actions as everyone is affected (Fieser, 2015, p.17). The Supreme Court held in the 5 to 4 ruling for Goodyear that annual pay decisions not contested within 180 days of the action, as stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, cannot be repaired by Title VII’s protection (Barkacs, & Barkacs, 2009). Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that looks at the consequences of an action to determine if it is morally right and is focused on ensuring the best course of action to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people, even if it means taking a personal loss 2 Case Study: GoodYear (Macat Education, 2015). The consequences, or results, of an action, will be morally right under this theory if they apply to as many people as possible in the best way possible. Premise One Pay discrimination is something that has been happen a lot in history of cumulative effect on wages and conduct that did occur within the timeframe. In the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter, Justice Ginsberg’s solo dissent pointed to past precedent from Bazemore v. Friday and stated that "each week's paycheck that delivers less based on discrimination is a wrong actionable under Title VII (Barkacs & Barkacs, 2009, para. 12). In Bazemore, the company was required to desegregate the black and white sections they had in place prior to Title VII passing. The company did merge the groups but continued to pay the blacks significantly less than the whites. The Supreme Court unanimously held that not adjusting the pay scales for blacks to be equal to whites was an unlawful act each time that blacks were paid less (Brake & Grossman, 2007). When it came to pay disparity it gave company and court the right to make decisions that affected the people until Title VII came into law, and thus before 180 days from the act. When the courts were looking at this case they should have understood that the choices that they make will impact the future of all people wanting to have discrimination, and help to resolve current cases. The reason is that decisions have to be made for moral reasons that make it a choice that can impact the future of these problems and make a statement that these problems will not be taken lightly when it becomes present in front of the court systems. Premise Two So when it comes to the case of Ledbetter, one of the biggest